Post navigation

2 comments for “Nelle Alleanze, amici / nemici.”

The proposal of an Alliance involving Airlines as well as any other franchising is based on a plan to offer standard services to clients, building a net to provide services to reach places (read customers) all over the world and getting passengers preference in lieu de other service providers. In this context, the shared mileage programs are fundamental to strengthen the fidelity concept.
This recipe is supposed to be: first, enough to select and reject parties, not necessarily friends or enemies, because before everything, they remain individuals, and needing to survive with profits and agreements. They remain competitors, although sharing one point of view to face the major concurrence; second, strategic to be known as standardized service provider, as well as other members, and entitled to have partners customers’ preference.
The idea of friendship must be put aside when we consider that two or more companies can offer services involving a same pair of cities. And we are not talking about direct flights only, but even about the concept of successful hub to serve two different points beyond each other borders.
VARIG’s fall demonstrated how indifferent partners can be. “If the King is dead, another one will certainly replace it” is the message given to the market. And nothing inhibits a today’s rival becomes a partner tomorrow, and in a glance, part of a rival group again soon after. That episode lesson was quite different of the concept of “friendship”, “commitment” or “allies”. It demonstrated no one considered the risk of losing money with a deficient structure; the most important is the long haul feeding. No one is safe to fall without help. Save a capable partner can be good (strategic), but the valuation of the assets can be even better.
Indeed, opportunities can be found when such a thing happens. And some partners have run to attract customers left behind by the former partner.
National policies can have responsibility over this, because several countries consider aviation reason of special protection with limits to foreign investment. It inhibits transference of international funds from profitable partners to not so profitable partners, because shares cannot be transferred beyond substantial percentage. And if investors cannot decide about the better use of their money, they don’t trust to put their money on it. Reasonable!
But if an open skies system is implemented to allow international actors inside dying national airlines, do not be surprised if local management disappears, local values disappears and just basic jobs remain without great candidates to unreasonable salaries.
Indeed, lots of jobs can be eliminated with an alliance. Thinking global, why keeping two or more structures or points of sales in a place where two or more partners can be represented by just one automated mechanism? Standard procedures, internet, easy functions enable that. So, as more participants are in an alliance, lower the bill, lower the competition, lower the quality.
Better voting on the stand alone solution, where each airline can be differentiated from the others and keep alive.
Luiz Medeiros (Lawyer, and former International Relations Manager of VARIG, Brazilian Airlines)

Hello Luiz,
I agree with your point of view.
Opportunities can be found in transition moments, and talking about a case close to me, Alitalia will probably benefits of more independent choices. Many jobs will likely have to be eliminated and network redesigned in order to close ties with a more functional partner.
AF-KLM and AZ are still allied, but more independent in their choices; the alliance will benefit from healthier partners.
If the future of legacy airlines, at least in Europe, is the long haul market, I would have at least considered the Ryanair offer toward Alitalia.